W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-wg@w3.org > November 2013

Re: Best Practices editors: to-do list & timelines - For tomorrow's meeting

From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:58:00 +0000
Message-ID: <528DCB18.7010704@gmail.com>
To: public-gld-wg@w3.org
Hi Boris,

I'm holding off doing a review until the editor's say it is stable and 
ready for that. However ...

I see the Procurement section is still in there.

To repeat my previous emails and telecon comments on this subject, -1 to 
inclusion of that in the Best Practice document.

Dave

On 21/11/13 04:51, Boris Marcelo Villazon Terrazas wrote:
> Thanks Hadley
>
> Sadly I have to send regrets for tomorrow's telecon ...
> We were working on the document taking into account your comments ...
> the new version is available here [1]; we are still missing two
> references ....
>
> Best
> Boris
>
> [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Hadley Beeman <hadley@linkedgov.org
> <mailto:hadley@linkedgov.org>> wrote:
>
>     Thanks, Bernadette!  I appreciate the update, and thanks to all
>     three of you (that's Ghislain and Boris too!) for all your hard work.
>
>     You still have a section in tomorrow's agenda.  [6]  This email
>     covers your first bullet point, so…  It's your time;  if there's
>     anything specific you'd rather the group discuss or help you on,
>     feel free to edit the agenda accordingly!
>
>     Speak tomorrow,
>
>         Hadley
>
>     Hadley Beeman
>     Co-chair
>     W3C Government Linked Data Working Group
>
>     [6] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Meetings:Telecon201311121
>
>     On 20 Nov 2013, at 16:52, Bernadette Hyland wrote:
>
>>     Hi,
>>     Thanks Hadley, we've reviewed the minutes from the last meeting,
>>     including guidance to the editors.[1]  I apologize that my work
>>     schedule hasn't permitted me to make the last couple meetings.
>>
>>     Today, two of the Best Practices document editors met & divided
>>     the remaining issues and discussed the various options in light of
>>     the date & our charter extension deadline.[2], [3], [4], [5]
>>      We're actively working on the documents this week.
>>
>>     Per your email, we opted for "Option B" (No public feedback)  for
>>     the Working Group Note given the timeframe. We believe that allows
>>     us to complete the edits this week and have a reasonable draft.
>>      The Web Data & BP WG can take this up as a 'package' and have
>>     hopefully something reasonable to begin with in terms of a solid
>>     core BP doc.  We hope that is a reasonable outcome given
>>     everyone's busy schedule, while not ideal, but the best we can do
>>     and will provide some useful guidance.
>>
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>
>>     Bernadette Hyland
>>
>>
>>     [1] http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/gld/2013-11-14#Best_Practices
>>
>>     [2] Assigned to Bern - Issue
>>     http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/6 (still open)
>>     Guidance good URIs for properties with non-literal ranges. See
>>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Nov/0005.html
>>
>>     [3] Assigned to Bern - Sandro proposed to remove  section #5 the
>>     name because seems confusing. Put the content in the next sections
>>     (6 and 7)
>>
>>     [4] Assigned to Boris - Use the new respec with one global
>>     bibliography-->> see this mail from Sandro:
>>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Nov/0005.html
>>
>>     [5] Assigned to Ghis - Link LD Glossary throughout the BP doc.
>>
>>     On Nov 13, 2013, at 12:28 PM, Hadley Beeman <hadley@linkedgov.org
>>     <mailto:hadley@linkedgov.org>> wrote:
>>
>>>     Hi all,
>>>
>>>     The clock is ticking down on our time together, sadly, and I know
>>>     we're all keen to get a Best Practices working group note out the
>>>     to the world where it can be useful. This email is to help us
>>>     work out how we can make that happen.
>>>
>>>     Quick stroll down memory lane:
>>>
>>>     At our Face-to-Face in Dublin in April, we resolved: [1]
>>>
>>>          •  The WG aims to publish Best Practices as a W3C Note.
>>>          •  Best Practices will (at most) only very briefly discuss
>>>     "1. Procurement", "4. Versioning", "5.Stability", and "6. Legacy
>>>     Data."  We don't have the time/expertise to do more.
>>>
>>>     If you'll remember back to our charter [2], that means we're
>>>     committed to deliver, at minimum, a working group note on:
>>>
>>>         1.  Vocabulary Selection. The group will provide advice on
>>>     how governments should select RDF vocabulary terms (URIs),
>>>     including advice as to when they should mint their own. This
>>>     advice will take into account issues of stability, security, and
>>>     long-term maintenance commitment, as well as other factors that
>>>     may arise during the group's work.
>>>
>>>         2.  URI Construction. The group will specify how to create
>>>     good URIs for use in government linked data. Inputs include Cool
>>>     URIs for the Semantic Web, Designing URI Sets for the UK Public
>>>     Sector (PDF), and Creating URIs (data.gov.uk
>>>     <http://data.gov.uk/>). Guidance will be produced not only for
>>>     minting URIs for governmental  entities, such as schools or
>>>     agencies, but also for vocabularies, concepts, and datasets.
>>>     (We're also committed to delivering the Cookbook, but we can
>>>     discuss that separately.)
>>>
>>>
>>>     I'm afraid we may have to reassess our planning a bit, given the
>>>     late date and how busy everyone seems to be.  It looks like you
>>>     have a good amount of content in the Editor's Draft [3], but
>>>     there are a number of expansion notes and formatting tasks to get
>>>     through.
>>>
>>>     More importantly though, after last week's meeting (in which the
>>>     working group wanted to reassess the use of five stars to
>>>     evaluate vocabularies [4]), I'm concerned that the group may need
>>>     some considerable time to review and discuss this work (and you,
>>>     to revise in collaboration with them) before we can come to a
>>>     consensus on publishing it.
>>>
>>>     So I'm looking at the timelines (as is my wont… it's a sad life,
>>>     I know!) and here are the options I think we have for this
>>>     deliverable:
>>>
>>>
>>>     — Option A: (the "We're all in!" option) —
>>>
>>>     1.  Full, pubrules-ready FPWD to the working group THIS TUESDAY.
>>>     (19 November)
>>>     I suspect we'll have to approve it for publication by email, if
>>>     we can, or find some other way to make that work.
>>>     [This is for publication 21 November]
>>>     2.  Two weeks for public and working group comments (21 November
>>>     - 5 December)*
>>>     3.  One week for the editors to revise the document, respond to
>>>     feedback, and return new draft to the working group for final
>>>     review (5-12 December)
>>>     4.  The working group resolves to publish: 12 December
>>>
>>>     * This is shorter than the usual W3C review period, but it seems
>>>     to be what we have.
>>>
>>>
>>>     — Option B: (the "No public feedback" option) —
>>>
>>>     1.  Editors revise and draft until 21 November.  (This gives you
>>>     a little over a week.)
>>>     2.  One week for working group comments and discussion (28
>>>     November - 5 December)**
>>>     3.  One week for the editors to revise the document, respond to
>>>     feedback, and return new draft to the working group for final
>>>     review (5-12 December)
>>>     4.  The working group resolves to publish: 12 December
>>>
>>>     ** We would probably arrange an extra call for these discussions
>>>     during that week of feedback.
>>>
>>>
>>>     — Option C (the "Last possible minute" option) — ***
>>>     1.  Editors continue to revise and work on it until 5 December
>>>     [to distribute to the working group, who must read it before they
>>>     can vote]
>>>     2.  The working group may resolve to publish: 12 December
>>>
>>>     *** Option C has a sizable risk:  that members of the working
>>>     group may have objections or want clarifications, and this option
>>>     doesn't allow any time to resolve them. The risk means that the
>>>     working group may not approve the document.
>>>
>>>
>>>     Ultimately, editors:  I think this both your decision and the
>>>     working group's, but it should be guided by what you, in your
>>>     expertise, think is best.  Feel free to discuss this here on the
>>>     mailing list, or among yourselves.
>>>
>>>     It would be great if your thoughts could guide our discussion in
>>>     tomorrow's meeting.
>>>
>>>     Cheers,
>>>
>>>        Hadley
>>>
>>>     Hadley Beeman
>>>     Co-chair
>>>     W3C Government Linked Data Working Group
>>>
>>>
>>>     [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/meeting/2013-04-11
>>>     [2] www.w3.org/2011/gld/charter <http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/charter>
>>>     [3] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html
>>>     [4] http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/gld/2013-11-07
>>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2013 08:58:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:40 UTC